ID: 77-1.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hon. M. C. Hatfield - U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: With regard to my letter to you of July 1, 1976, concerning the application of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, to the paver manufactured by Layton Manufacturing Company of Salem, Oregon, I would like to advise you of a clarification of the requirements of the standard that may be relevant to Layton's product.

Essentially, it has been clarified that the requirement of S5.1.1 of the standard accommodates a manufacturer's decision to equip its motor vehicle with tires other than "tires for highway service." This means that Layton can choose to use tires that do not conform to the requirements set forth in S5.1.1 of the standard. I have enclosed a copy of the notice that contains a detailed discussion of this clarification.

ID: 77-1.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Robert Bosch Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 26, 1977, asking for confirmation of several interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

You are correct that, as an equipment standard, Standard No. 108 applies only to replacement of equipment that was originally mounted on the vehicle to enable it to comply with the requirements of the standard. It does not apply to items not covered by the standard, but which are frequently provided as new vehicle options, such as fog lamps and cornering lamps. Any item of lighting equipment not required is permissable to be installed, as you also noted, if it does not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment (paragraph S4.1.3). Additional lighting equipment is otherwise subject to State regulation.

You also asked "what would be the NHTSA's stand on products where SAE standards do not exist, for example halogen headlights?" A halogen headlamp that does not comply with Standard No. 108 and is intended as a replacement headlamp may not be imported and sold for this use. On the other hand, halogen fog lamps may be imported and sold, subject to State regulations.

I hope this answers your questions.

YOURS TRULY,

ROBERT BOSCH CORPORATION

January 26, 1977

Office of Chief Council (N40-30) NHTSA

Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108

We have inquired at your Chicago District Office regarding FMVSS108. Robert Weltzer of that office has been extremely helpful in providing information and clarifying our questions. He also suggested we contact you for confirmation of a few points and insight into some others.

Robert Bosch is studying the feasibility of marketing a full line of auxilliary and replacement lighting products. As we understand it, FMVSS 108, Section 2, applies 1). only to actual replacement of equipment supplied new with the vehicle. 2). It is also implied that additional equipment which interferes with OE equipment would fall under this regulation. Can you confirm this?

We would interpret this to mean that 108 does not apply to products offered solely as auxilliary, add-on equipment. In practice, however, we realize that most states rely on the recommendations of the AAMVA (American Association of Motor Vehicle Administration) which bases its recommendations on compliance of equipment with SAE standards, usually verified by ETL testing.

What would be the NHTSA's stance on products where SAE standards do not exist, for example, Halogen headlights?

Since no federal law would then apply to such products, are we right in assuming that state laws would prevail, more or less making the AAMVA's approval mandatory?

We are quite interested in literally shedding some light on the confused regulations prevailing in the U.S. for on-highway vehicle lighting. Bosch has some exceptional lighting products which have proven themselves in the European and Canadian markets in particular. We would also like to contribute here to the same safety awareness and concern that our products address themselves to in other countries.

Any insight and comment to the situation at large would be very much appreciated. We are particularly looking forward to your specific reactions to the questions raised in this letter to help guide our marketing decisions for lights.

Allan Cheshire Market Research Analyst

ID: 77-1.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: British Standards Institution

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the British Standards Institution's December 2, 1976, request to know what constitutes "first purchase of [a new motor vehicle] in good faith for purposes other than resale" as this phrase is used on @ 108(b)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(1) and @ 567.7 of NHTSA regulations (Part 567 -- Certification). You also ask to know the legal basis for any distinction between "original equipment" and "replacement equipment" as those terms are used in regulation of motor vehicles and equipment in the United States.

I can confirm your understanding of @ 567.7 of our regulations, as set forth in the statements which you designate as "(a)" and "(b)". With regard to statement "(b)", @ 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits, except in the process of repair, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or part, any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle incompliance with an applicable standard. Thus a dealer could not make the sunroof alteration if he knew that installation rendered inoperative the minimum roof crush capabilities specified by Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance.

Your statement designated "(c)" is not necessarily correct. The NHTSA's interpretation of the meaning of "first purchase" relies substantially on the modifier "in good faith."

Thus the agency evaluates the circumstances of the purchase with a view to whether or not there is an attempt to circumvent the requirements of law and applicable regulation. For example, when purchasers asked for disconnection of ignition interlock systems by dealers after contracting for the purchase of a vehicle, the agency required that bona fide physical delivery take place without an immediate return of the vehicle to the dealer for disconnection. As a practical matter, the new provision of the Act discussed above (@ 108(a)(1)(A)) prohibits dealer action of this type in the future.

Since the 1974 amendments to the Act, there has been a distinction between "original equipment" and "replacement equipment". I have enclosed a copy of our proposal to implement this distinction for purposes of Federal regulation. I believe your question actually addresses the practices of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. You may wish to contact one or more of those organizations for an answer to your questions.

ID: 77-1.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/15/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Oconomowoc Public Schools; Wisconsin

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 3, 1977, letter asking whether the new school bus definition (effective April 1, 1977) precludes the use of vans which seat less than 10 passengers from transporting children to and from school.

The Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492) authorized the NHTSA to redefine the term "school bus" to include all motor vehicles which seat 10 or more passengers and which transport children to and from school. The NHTSA redefined the term in accordance with the wishes of Congress for the purpose of prescribing safety requirements for buses that fall within the definition. The definition does not preclude the use of vans or any other type of motor vehicle which seat fewer than 10 passengers from transporting children to and from school. Such vehicles may transport children without complying with the school bus safety requirements.

SINCERELY,

Oconomowoc Public Schools

February 3, 1977

Charles E. Duke Deputy Administrator NHTSA

Members of the Wisconsin Legislature are attempting to define a school bus to allow some flexibility for vehicle use in the under 10 passenger capacity. Senate Bill 110 was introduced on Wednesday, February 2, 1977 with the leaders attempting to push it through without opposition. The bill has many fine features with only one specific area of concern on the part o school administrators.

In place of using the term "vehicles under 10 passengers," the author stated specifically "an automobile or station wagon that is not designed or constructed as a van" may be used. This is for transportation other than transportation of children to or from school. The proponents for this measure claim the new federal regulation to be enacted on April 1, 1977 will require all states to conform to this measure. Since many schools have small vans for use in lunch delivery, mail service, and the like, they find these vehicles very useful in transporting small groups like the golf team, forensic students, and band groups and at a minimum cost.

I am enclosing the portion of Bill 110 that pertains to vehicle on use of the description. Please review the measure and provide a ruling term "vehicles under 10 passengers" in place of "an automobile or station wagon that is not designed or constructed as a van" with reference to the new federal regulation.

The chairman of the review board on legislative measures stated yesterday that he felt a hearing on Bill 110 would be held by February 15, 1977. I realize the request is on short notice but also realize that without some interpretation from your agency, we will be forced to live with a measure that will be very costly and inefficient.

Thank you for your help and assistance.

Carlyle Holtan Director of Transportation

[ENC. OMITTED]

ID: 77-1.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/17/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Topeka Metropolitan Transit

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 4, 1977, letter posing several questions concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) definition of school bus and its effect upon the use of transit buses to transport children to and from school.

You asked several questions in your letter:

(1) Are buses designed and sold for operation as common carriers in urban transportation prohibited from use in school transportation services under Federal regulations?

Buses sold for operation as common carriers in urban transportation (transit buses) are not prohibited from use in school transportation. The definition of "school bus" is not intended to include transit buses on regular common-carrier routes, although they may be used in some circumstances to transport school students to and from school and related events. This type of bus has never been considered a school bus under the motor vehicle safety standards for school bus construction or under the Pupil Transportation Standard No. 17 (43 CFR 1204) for school bus operation.

(2) If the answer to (1) is no, must such buses when used incidentally in school transportation services comply with any safety standards required of "school buses" under the Federal regulations and if so, from which are they exempt and to which must they comply? (of special concern is forward facing seats requirement of 49 CFR @ 571.222 - s5.1).

The answer to your question is no. As noted above, common carriers in urban transportation are excluded from the Federal definition of "school bus" and need not comply with any Federal school bus construction regulation. While Kansas has chosen to define "school bus" differently (and in a manner to include these transit buses), this state definition represents a voluntary decision to extend Federal construction requirements (such as forward facing seats) to a broader catagory of vehicles than dictated by Federal law and regulations.

(3) Do federal regulations encourage or discourage the incidental use of common carrier buses to help solve urban school transportation problems?

Federal safety regulations promulgated under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act neither encourage nor discourage the incidental use of transit buses to transport children to and from school.

(4) Is the Kansas law with regard to school buses, by its definition in K.S.A. 8-1461 (Supp., 1976), and its requirements of under K.S.A. 8-2009 (Supp., 1976) (which include all safety requirements of the Kansas Transportation Manual, effective May 1, 1976) preempted, as applied to common carriers sold and designed for use in urban transportation, by federal law under 15 U.S.C. @ 1392 (d)?

The NHTSA responded to your question on preemption in our letter dated June 15, 1976. That response is still valid. With regard to your question concerning the preemption of the Kansas definition of "school bus," only state motor vehicle safety standards in conflict with Federal standards are preempted. State definitions of terms are not preempted by Federal definitions.

SINCERELY,

TOPEKA METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

January 14, 1977

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

On May 17, 1976 the Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority requested an opinion from your office concerning a proposed amendment to an existing Kansas statute and its possible conflict with Federal law. Your responsive opinion of June 15, 1976 was helpful but our efforts failed in the Kansas legislature.

Currently, under my understanding of Kansas law, the TMTA is prohibited from transporting any school child to or from school in its buses which were designed and sold for use as common carriers in urban transportation because of the Kansas definition of school bus (K.S.A. 8-1461 Supp, 1976), the requirement of forward facing seats (K.S.A. 8-2009 (a) Supp. 1976) and many other regulations issued by the secretary of transportation under authority of K.S.A. 8-2009 (Supp. 1976) to which TMTA's common carrier buses do not comply.

Consequently the TMTA is proposing amendments to the Kansas statutes which prohibit the use of our buses in school related transportation. There is concern by the Director of Highway Safety that to allow utilization of TMTA's buses would violate Federal law and regulations, and in the 1976 legislature session he convinced the legislators of his belief.

To clear up this controversy we request an update of your last opinion by responding to the following specific questions:

(1) Are buses designed and sold for operation as common carriers in urban transportation prohibited from use in school transportation services under Federal regulations?

(2) If the answer to (1) is no, must such buses when used incidentally in school transportation services comply with any safety standards required of "school buses" under the Federal regulations and if so, from which are they exempt and to which must they comply? (of special concern is forward facing seats requirement of 49 CFR @ 571.222 - s5.1).

(3) Do federal regulations encourage or discourage the incidental use of common carrier buses to help solve urban school transportation problems?

(4) Is the Kansas law with regard to school buses, by its definition in K.S.A.8-1461 (Supp., 1976), and its requirements of under K.S.A. 8-2009 (Supp., 1976) (which include all safety requirements of the Kansas Transportation Manual, effective May 1, 1976) preempted, as applied to common carriers sold and designed for use in urban transportation, by federal law under 15 U.S.C. @ 1392 (d)?

Answers to these questions or as many of them as you feel is appropriate, will greatly clarify our position.

James N. Clymer Legal Staff

ID: 77-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/17/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 6, 1977, question regarding the effective date of the recent amendment to Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, that specifies color coding requirements for brake fluids (41 FR 54942, December 16, 1976). You asked whether motor vehicles manufactured after the effective date for the color coding requirements (September 1, 1978) may be equipped with brake fluids manufactured prior to that date that do not conform to the color coding requirements.

The answer to your question is yes. Paragraph S5.3 of Standard No. 116 specifies that motor vehicles having hydraulic brake systems shall be equipped with brake fluid that has been manufactured and packaged in conformity with the requirements of the standard. The agency interprets this to mean that vehicles shall be equipped with any brake fluid that conformed to the requirements of Standard No. 116 at the time the brake fluid was manufactured.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

January 6, 1977

Frank A. Berndt -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I would like to take this time to ask you for your interpretation regarding the effective date of brake fluid color coding requirements (MVSS 116, Docket 71-13; Notice 12) for the motor vehicles.

My understanding is that even on and after September 1, 1978 the motor vehicles can be equipped with brake fluid manufactured before that date which do not meet the color coding requirement of S.5.1.14 because FMVSS 116 except S5.3 does not apply to the motor vehicle manufacturer but to the brake fluid manufacturer. Is my understanding correct?

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to hearing your interpretation of the above.

Very truly yours, Tokio Iinuma -- Staff, Safety

ID: 77-1.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/17/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lucas Industries North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: 77-1.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/22/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your January 17, 1977, letter concerning the requirements of Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, for passenger cars. You requested confirmation of your interpretation that the standard specifies no requirements for outside rearview mirrors on the passenger's side of the vehicle when the inside rearview mirror meets the field of view performance requirements of paragraph S5.1.1 of the standard.

Your interpretation is correct. If the inside rearview mirror of a passenger car meets the specified performance requirements, the vehicle is not required to be equipped with an outside rearview mirror on the passenger's side. However, a manufacturer is free to equip its vehicles with outside right-hand mirrors, either plane or convex, if he choses.

You should note that each passenger car whose inside rearview mirror does not meet the field of view performance requirements of paragraph S5.1.1 must have an outside rearview mirror of unit magnification installed on the passenger's side of the vehicle.

SINCERELY,

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

January 17, 1977

Frank A. Berndt, Esq. Acting Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, FMVSS 111, Paragraph 5.3, states that "each passenger car whose inside rear view mirror does not meet the field of view requirements of S 5.1.1, shall have an outside rear view mirror of unit magnification installed on the passenger side . . . " (emphasis added).

In Paragraph S 5.3, the emphasis is placed on the inside rear view mirror, which does not meet the field of view requirements of S 5.1.1.

It is BMW's understanding that the outside rear view mirror on the passenger side, whether of unit or non-unit magnification, does not fall within the jurisdiction of FMVSS 111, when the vehicle's inside rear view mirror meets the field of view requirements of S 5.1.1.

Your confirmation in writing of this understanding would be appreciated.

Karl-Heinz Ziwica Manager, Safety Engineering

ID: 77-1.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/22/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 19, 1977, question whether the requirement of S5.2 of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, for a restraining barrier of specified size in front of certain designated seating positions necessitates the provision of an additional barrier surface in front of those portions of a bench seat that do not form part of the designated seating positions. You describe a front-row two-passenger bench seat in a bus (with a seat back that extends beyond the bench to provide adequate restraint for a three-passenger seat aft of it) and ask about the restraining barrier that is required in front of the two-passenger front-row seat.

Paragraph S5.2.2 requires that the perimeter of the restraining barrier coincide with or lie outside of the perimeter of the seat back of the seat for which it is required. This means that the restraining barrier must coincide with or lie outside of the perimeter of the seat back of the designated seating position or positions for which it is required. Therefore, a seat with only two designated seating positions must only be equipped with a restraining barrier in front of those two seating positions.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

January 19, 1977

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The purpose of this leter is to get an interpretation regarding paragraph S5.2.2, Barrier Position and Rear Surface Area, of FMVSS 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. The subject paragraph reads "The position and rear surface area of the restraining barrier shall be such that, in a front projected view of the bus, each point of the barrier's perimeter coincides with or lies outside of the perimeter of the seat back of the seat for which it is required."

In the development of this standard it has been our understanding that NHTSA was contemplating a possible passenger loss on the right front seat of the school bus. This would necessitate a special seat at the right front position which would have seating provision for two passengers and a seat back wide enough to provide barrier protection for the three passengers in the second front seat on the right side. With this configuration the barrier in front of the right front seat would be a two passenger barrier.

We have designed such a seating and barrier configuration as described above. * We would like confirmation of our interpretation that paragraph S5.2.2 allows this configuration.

* See enclosed photos showing mockup of this seat and barrier arrangement.

Thank you for your early attention and reply to this matter.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 77-1.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/22/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to General Motors Corporation's February 2, 1977; request for confirmation that the impact protection requirements contained in S3.1 of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, apply only to the area of the instrument panel that falls within a defined zone and does not apply to other objects installed near the instrument panel, such as the control handle of a spotlight mounted in the right-side windshield pillar, that also fall within the specified zone.

The impact protection requirements of the standard apply only to the instrument panel itself in S3.1. This section references a Society of Automotive Engineers recommended Practice J921 which specifies that the instrument panel assembly be removed from the vehicle for testing. Thus, the presence of objects in the specified impact zone within the vehicle must be disregarded for purposes of judging compliance of the vehicle with the requirement itself.

SINCER